Language

Grammar

Whom do you trust?

DO YOU love "whom"? Stan Carey's exhaustive post on the case-marked pronoun says almost everything to be said on the subject, quoting everyone from those who put their foot down for "whom" to those who insist that the sooner "who" fills its last functions, the better. Those interested should take a look at the whole post. It also includes handy graphs such as this one, showing the prevalence of "whom" in English books over the past 200 years.

It's hard to say anything new about "whom", but it does raise a broader question: how to think about these questions. The facts are pretty plain: in formal, edited writing, whom is holding its ground. For those lawyers and professors who can't use it correctly, there is usually a copy editor who will make the change for them. At the other end of the spectrum is everyday speech, where "whom" has all but drawn down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. Mark Liberman has found that "who" is 218 times more common in "whom" in one corpus of recorded, spontaneous speech. In books, the ratio is something more like 10 ("who") to 1 ("whom"). The graph above exaggerates the decline of "whom", since "who" has also declined. (People today may be more likely to write "the man standing there" than "the man who is standing there".) But "whom" has declined relatively more than "whom".

So what's your philosophy about traditional grammar, usages like "whom" which a) have an undeniable role in the history of English, but b) are undeniably dwindling? There seem to be three basic schools of thought:

- "The language has traditional rules, and 'whom' is one of them. I try to use it everywhere case-marking dictates."

- "Speech is real, writing is artificial. Even Shakespeare couldn't figure out 'whom'. The 'whom' is dead; long live the 'who'!"

The Economistprescribes the traditional style. So do most journalistic outlets, though Reuters allows for exceptions: "we should follow common usage and be ready to use who as the object where this sounds and looks more natural, e.g. Who she met at the midnight rendezvous was not yet known." That's the middle option above. The middle option always seems like a sensible one, but the objection is obvious: "who decides what's natural?" Are you just fine with such a rough rule? Or do you crave a framework that doesn't require on-the-fly judgment?

One last question, for those speakers of a language that requires lots of case-marking (German and Russian jump to mind among the modern European languages, Greek and Latin among the classical ones): does your knowledge of an inflected language make you more whom-friendly?

I don't mind when people use "who" when it should be "whom." What really bugs me is the opposite. -- use of "whom" when "who" is correct. It's a phenomenon similar to those who default to "I" in all cases ("the gift is from Jake and I" or "just between you and I"). They don't understand the rules and think that "me" is wrong or makes them sound unintelligent.

As an Austrian I speak German and yes, I'm definitely more "whom-friendly".
It substitutes what would be the 3rd and 4th case in German:
3rd case: Wem vertraust du? - Whom do you trust?
4th case: Wen siehst du? - Whom do you see?

Together with "whose", which substitutes the german 2nd case, it is essential for the language.
2nd case: Wessen Auto ist das? - Whose car is this?

These words make English much more beautiful and complete.
I hope "whom" will stay it's ground, English would be poorer without it!

As a native speaker of Russian, I have always been perplexed at the native English speakers who (notice, not 'whom' :P) seem perpetually confused with this simple word. I never have any questions whether to use 'who' or 'whom' in English, as the case in which the word 'who' is will dictate which form it'll take. Aside from that, I am definitely a firm believer in the rule that "the language has traditional rules, and 'whom' is one of them. I try to use it everywhere case-marking dictates."

I learned the Morgenstern poem "Der Werwolf" as a high school German student. It's one of the funniest and self-aware-silliest expositions of inflected pronouns I know of. "Wer" means "who," so in German "werwolf" could be (mis)read as "who-wolf." Anyhow, the crux of the poem is that a werewolf asks a dead schoolmaster to go through the declensions of his name. Here's the key paragraph:
"Der Werwolf" - sprach der gute Mann,
"des Weswolfs, Genitiv sodann,
dem Wemwolf, Dativ, wie man's nennt,
den Wenwolf, - damit hat's ein End."
Fun stuff…at leasts for language-lovers.

Thanks to my father's rather pedantic reminders growing up, I still tend to use "whom," especially after prepositions ("for whom," "with whom, etc.). I took several years of Latin, and (to answer RLG's question) that raised my sensitivity to inflected pronouns in English as well.

On the whole, though, I favor a descriptivist approach to language and try not to make assumptions about someone's intelligence or attention to detail based solely on whether he deploys "whom" correctly.

Thougn a native English speaker, I am fluent in German; and learning this second language has certainly made me more "whom-friendly". I use the "whom" form consistently in written English, but less so in spoken English. Frankly, I don't think losing "whom" is a big deal, as context is always clear enough to render the meaning of the sentence unequivocal. I am opposed to losing a word if precision or a potential nuance is also lost (e.g., the slow takeover of "less" vs. "fewer"). But who will really miss "whom"?

With all due respect to the blogger, the example cited by Reuters "Who she met at the midnight rendezvous was not yet known." would not, under normal grammar rules, use "whom" at all. In this sentence, the "who" is used in the relative case, not the accusative. The indefinite pronoun in the relative case in English just happens to be the same as in the nominative, i.e.: who.

From somebody who speaks both German and English: the only real use of case-marking in German (which, in common speach, many people flubb) is that you can put the important bits of a sentence at the front. This is good German style (and completely foreign to English). An example: in German, it makes perfect sense to say "MIR gibst Du das Buch", thus emphasizing that it is _I_ to whom you are to give the book (and not somebody else), but in English "Me give you the book" is just meaningless. You can achieve the same effect, but only by way of voice tone (this accounts for many CAPITALIZED WORDS in emails) or by circumlocution. Different languages work - wait for it - differently

I'm all for bringing written language closer to the spoken. Whom is very artificial, and like many people said, it is often used in the "wrong" context. English lost most of its case markings, so let's just let go of whom. Also, my knowledge of Russian makes it plainly clear when whom "should" be used, but doesn't make me more "whom" friendly - they are different languages, and case is alive and well in Russian.

Language is a living, changing and adaptive form of communication. Whether written or spoken, our language patterns adapt to what is easier for the population. Using "whom" is just more complex than "who." Since simplicity rules in language. I can't see the digital natives or millennial generation taking the time to figure out "should I text 'who' or 'whom'? Loraine Antrim

For me, "whom" is part of the English language, plain and simple. As is the adverb, and other such parts of speech that are not dying, but being killed off; and not due to progress in linguistic understanding, but by a lack thereof, the lack of proper teaching about how to clothe a thought in words, whether spoken or written.

There is a fundamental difference between subject and object in English language construct. If we are deciding to change that, so be it. Until we do, however, who and whom should not be allowed to be treated as synonymous.

Similar change has happened before. The syntax and vowel system of English changed quite dramatically in just the 300 years between Chaucer and Shakespeare and almost as markedly in the century after him. Remember thee and thou?

Ever since I learned German, using "whom" has become a natural reflex.
So now please tell me, should I follow the rules I finally grasp or should I just ditch the "whom"?
By now I confuse how to make natural sounding English sentences, when the grammar rules seem at odds with the natural rhythm of the spoken language. I don't want to sound like a big phony jerk...
Another thing, what's the deal about the rule against the dangling preposition?
It's easy enough to unite the preposition and its object earlier in the sentence (like in German), but in English it sounds pretty stilted and unnatural.
Example:
To whom did you give it?
Who'd you give it to?
With whom did you have lunch?
Who did you have lunch with?
What did you do that for?
For what did you do that?
Which is better?